3.8 Article

Antibiotic Susceptibility Pattern of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus from the Isolated Wound Culture in the Northwest Region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Publisher

SARASEERUHA PUBL
DOI: 10.18311/ajprhc/2017/5972

Keywords

Antibiotic; Cultures; Sensitive

Funding

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), University of Tabuk, Saudi Arabia [S-0093-1436]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present study aimed to investigate the antibiotic susceptibility pattern of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in isolated wound cultures of the patients admitted in King Khalid Hospital, Talatik, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A retrospective cohort study of 54 patients admitted with wound infections in the surgical. department. Ethics committee. approval was granted by the University of Talpulk and King Khalid Hospital, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Fifty-four adult patients (>18 years old) diagnosed with moderate to severe skin and soft tissue infections were included in the study. 26 patientsl with isolated cultures of MRSA were compared with 28 patients with Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) isolated cultures using Graph pad prism 4.0 version statistical databases. Overall, there was no significant difference in sensitivity (P=0.2445) and resistance (P=0.4215) between MRSA and MSSA cultures. However,it is interesting findings that Oxacillin and Fusidic acid had higher resistance in MRSA isolated cultures compared MSSA culture, on the other hand, Linezolid, Tigecycline and Nitrofurantoin shows 100% sensitivity in both MRSA and MSSA isolates. No significant difference between male and female regarding the sensitivity (P=0.0638) and resistance (P=0.3638). The current study emphasizes that Tigecycline, Nitrofurantoin and Fusidic acid were the best drugs in both MRSA and MSSA isolates. While, oxacillin showed 100% resistance to MRSA; but retain its efficacy on MSSA isolates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available